No evidence for an indirect benefit from female mate preference in Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus, but female ornamentation decreases offspring viability

Biological Journal of the Linnean Society

Volumn 103, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 602-611

  Janhunen, Matti ^a   Kekäläinen, Jukka ^b,c   Kortet, Raine ^c   Hyvärinen, Pekka ^a   Piironen, Jorma ^a  

^a FINNISH FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF JYVÄSKYLÄ   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

Carotenoid coloration; Genetic quality; Mate choice; Maternal effects; Salmonids

Indexed keywords

CAROTENOID; COLOR; EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY; FITNESS; GENETIC VARIATION; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; MATE CHOICE; MATERNAL EFFECT; ORNAMENTATION; SALMONID; SURVIVORSHIP; TRADE-OFF;

SALMONIDAE; SALVELINUS ALPINUS; SALVELINUS FONTINALIS;

EID: 79959205920     PISSN: 00244066     EISSN: 10958312     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2011.01659.x     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Ahmadi MR, Bazyar AA, Safi S, Ytrestoyl T, Bjerkeng B. 2006. Effects of dietary astaxanthin supplementation on reproductive characteristics of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Journal of Applied Ichthyology 22: 388-394.
2. Anderson WW, Kim Y-K, Gowaty PA. 2007. Experimental constraints on mate preferences in Drosophila pseudoobscura decrease offspring viability and fitness of mated pairs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 104: 4484-4488.
3. Andersson MB. 1994. Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4. Bateman AJ. 1948. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2: 349-368.
5. Blount JD, Houston DC, Møller AP. 2000. Why egg yolk is yellow? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 47-49.
6. Bluhm CK, Gowaty PA. 2004. Social constraints on female mate preferences in mallards, Anas platyrhynchos, decrease offspring viability and mother productivity. Animal Behaviour 68: 977-983.
7. Candolin U. 2003. The use of multiple cues in mate choice. Biological Reviews 78: 575-595.
8. CIE (International Commission on Illumination). 1986. Colorimetry. CIE Publication No. 15.2. Vienna: CIE.
9. Consuegra S, Garcia de Leaniz C. 2008. MHC-mediated mate choice increases parasite resistance in salmon. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, Biological Sciences 275: 1397-1403.
10. Cummings M, Mollaghan D. 2006. Repeatability and consistency of female preference behaviours in a northern swordtail, Xiphophorus nigrensis. Animal Behaviour 72: 217-224.
11. Drickamer LC, Gowaty PA, Holmes CM. 2000. Free mate choice in house mice affects reproductive success and offspring viability and performance. Animal Behaviour 59: 371-378.
12. Drickamer LC, Gowaty PA, Wagner DM. 2003. Free mutual mate preferences in house mice affect reproductive success and offspring performance. Animal Behaviour 65: 105-114.
13. Eilertsen EM, Bårdsen B-J, Liljedal S, Rudolfsen G, Folstad I. 2009. Experimental evidence for paternal effects on offspring growth rate in Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, Biological Sciences 276: 129-136.
14. Fabricius E, Gustafson K. 1954. Further aquarium observations on the spawning behaviour of the char, Salmo alpinus. Institute of Freshwater Research Report, Drottningholm 35: 58-104.
15. Figenschou L, Folstad I, Liljedal S. 2004. Lek fidelity of male Arctic charr. Canadian Journal of Zoology 82: 1278-1284.
16. Fleming IA, Reynolds JD. 2004. Salmonid breeding systems. In: Hendry AP, Stearns SC, eds. Evolution illuminated: salmon and their relatives. New York: Oxford University Press, 264-294.
17. Forsberg LA, Dannewitz J, Petersson E, Grahn M. 2007. Influence of genetic dissimilarity in the reproductive success and mate choice of brown trout - females fishing for optimal MHC dissimilarity. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20: 1859-1869.
18. Gabor C. 1999. Association patterns of sailfin mollies (Poecilia latipinna): alternative hypotheses. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 46: 333-340.
19. Garner SR, Bortoluzzi RN, Heath DD, Neff BD. 2010. Sexual conflict inhibits female mate choice for major histocompatibility complex dissimilarity in Chinook salmon. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, Biological Sciences 277: 885-894.
20. Grether GF, Kolluru GR, Rodd FH, de la Cerda J, Shimazaki K. 2005. Carotenoid availability affects the development of a colour-based mate preference and the sensory bias to which it is genetically linked. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, Biological Sciences 272: 2181-2188.
21. Hatlen B, Jobling M, Bjerkeng B. 1998. Relationships between carotenoid concentration and colour of fillets of Arctic chair, Salvelinus alpinus (L.), fed astaxanthin. Aquaculture Research 29: 191-202.
22. Heath DD, Fox CW, Heath JW. 1999. Maternal effects on offspring size: variation through early development of Chinook salmon. Evolution 53: 1605-1611.
23. Hunt J, Bussière L, Jennions MD, Brooks R. 2004. What is genetic quality? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 329-333.
24. Jacob A, Nusslé S, Britschgi A, Evanno G, Müller R, Wedekind C. 2007. Male dominance linked to size and age, but not to 'good genes' in brown trout (Salmo trutta). BMC Evolutionary Biology 7: 207.
25. Jacob A, Evanno G, von Siebenthal BA, Grossen C, Wedekind C. 2010. Effects of different mating scenarios on embryo viability in brown trout. Molecular Ecology 19: 5296-5307.
26. Janhunen M, Rudolfsen G, Kekäläinen J, Figencshou L, Peuhkuri N, Kortet R. 2009. Spawning coloration and sperm quality in a large lake population of Arctic charr (Salmonidae: Salvelinus alpinus L.). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 98: 794-802.
27. Janhunen M, Piironen J, Peuhkuri J. 2010. Parental effects on embryonic viability and growth in Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus at two incubation temperatures. Journal of Fish Biology 76: 2558-2570.
28. Janhunen M, Peuhkuri N, Primmer C, Kolari I, Piironen J. 2011. Does breeding ornamentation signal genetic quality in Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus? Evolutionary Biology 38: 68-78.
29. Johnston G. 2002. Arctic charr aquaculture. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
30. Kekäläinen J, Vallunen JA, Primmer CR, Rättyä J, Taskinen J. 2009. Signals of major histocompatibility complex overdominance in a wild salmonid population. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, Biological Sciences 276: 3133-3140.
31. Kekäläinen J, Huuskonen H, Tuomaala M, Kortet R. 2010a. Both male and female sexual ornaments reflect offspring performance in a fish. Evolution 64: 3149-3157.
32. Kekäläinen J, Valkama H, Huuskonen H, Taskinen J. 2010b. Multiple sexual ornamentation signals mate quality and predicts female preference in minnows. Ethology 116: 895-903.
33. Kekäläinen J, Rudolfsen G, Janhunen M, Figencshou L, Peuhkuri N, Tamper N, Kortet R. 2010c. Genetic and potential non-genetic benefits increase offspring fitness of polyandrous females in non-resource based mating system. BMC Evolutionary Biology 10: 20.
34. Kokko H, Brooks R, Jennions MD, Morley J. 2003. The evolution of mate choice and mating biases. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, Biological Sciences 270: 653-664.
35. Kortet R, Vainikka A, Rantala MJ, Myntti J, Taskinen J. 2004. In vitro embryo survival and early viability of larvae in relation to male sexual ornaments and parasite resistance in roach, Rutilus rutilus L. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17: 1337-1344.
36. Kraaijeveld K, Kraaijeveld-Smit FJL, Komdeur J. 2007. The evolution of mutual ornamentation. Animal Behaviour 74: 657-677.
37. Labonne J, Augery M, Parade M, Brinkert S, Prevost E, Héland M, Beall E. 2009. Female preference for male body size in brown trout, Salmo trutta: is big still fashionable? Animal Behaviour 77: 129-137.
38. Lande R. 1980. Sexual dimorphism, sexual selection, and adaptation in polygenic characters. Evolution 34: 292-305.
39. Lehtonen TK, Lindström K. 2008. Repeatability of mating preferences in the sand goby. Animal Behaviour 75: 55-61.
40. Lehtonen TK, Wong BBM, Lindström K. 2010. Fluctuating mate preferences in a marine fish. Biology Letters 6: 21-23.
41. Måsvær M, Liljedal S, Folstad I. 2004. Are secondary sex traits, parasites and immunity related to variation in primary sex traits in the Arctic charr? Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, Biological Sciences 271: 40-42.
42. Mays HL, Hill GE. 2004. Choosing mates: good genes versus genes that are a good fit. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 554-559.
43. Milinski M, Bakker TCM. 1990. Female sticklebacks use male coloration in mate choice and hence avoid parasitized males. Nature 344: 330-333.
44. Møller AP, Alatalo RV. 1999. Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences 266: 85-91.
45. Møller AP, Biard C, Blount JD, Houston DC, Ninni P, Saino N, Surai PF. 2000. Carotenoid-dependent signals: indicators of foraging efficiency, immunocompetence or detoxification ability? Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews 11: 137-159.
46. Moore AJ, Gowaty PA, Wallin WG, Moore PJ. 2001. Sexual conflict and the evolution of female mate choice and male social dominance. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, Biological Sciences 268: 523-530.
47. Nagler JJ, Parsons JE, Cloud JG. 2000. Single pair mating indicates maternal effects on embryo survival in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquaculture 184: 177-183.
48. Neff BD, Pitcher TE. 2005. Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Molecular Ecology 14: 19-38.
49. Nordeide JT. 2007. Is there more in 'gamete quality' than quality of the gametes? A review of effects of female mate choice and genetic compatibility on offspring quality. Aquaculture Research 38: 1-16.
50. Nordeide JT, Rudolfsen G, Egeland ES. 2006. Ornaments or offspring? Female sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.) trade off carotenoids between spines and eggs. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19: 431-439.
51. Nordeide JT, Mohus Å, Nicolaisen O, Volden R, Egeland ES. 2008. Offspring or ornaments? Is carotenoid-based ornamentation in female Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus (L.), condition-dependent and traded off against offspring? Ecology of Freshwater Fish 17: 328-339.
52. Patton SJ, Kane SL, Wheeler PA, Thorgaard GH. 2007. Maternal and paternal influence on early embryonic survival of androgenetic rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): implications for measuring egg quality. Aquaculture 263: 26-34.
53. Perry GML, Audet C, Laplatte B, Bernantchez L. 2004. Shifting patterns in genetic control at the embryo-alevin boundary in brook charr. Evolution 58: 2002-2012.
54. Petersson E, Järvi T. 2007. Characteristics of brown trout males influence growth and survival of their offspring. Journal of Fish Biology 71: 493-509.
55. Petersson E, Järvi T, Olsén H, Mayer I, Hedenskog M. 1999. Male-male competition and female mate choice in brown trout. Animal Behaviour 57: 777-783.
56. Pitcher TE, Neff BD. 2007. Genetic quality and offspring performance in Chinook salmon: implications for supportive breeding. Conservation Genetics 8: 607-616.
57. Puurtinen M, Ketola T, Kotiaho JS. 2009. The good-genes and compatible-genes benefits of mate choice. The American Naturalist 174: 741-751.
58. Qvarnström A. 2001. Context-dependent genetic benefits from mate choice. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 5-7.
59. Reid JM. 2007. Secondary sexual ornamentation and non-additive genetic benefits of female mate choice. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, Biological Sciences 274: 1395-1402.
60. Reynolds JD. 1996. Animal breeding systems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 11: 68-72.
61. Rudolfsen G, Figenschou L, Folstad I, Nordeide JT, Søreng E. 2005. Potential fitness benefits from mate selection in the Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18: 172-179.
62. Ryan KK, Altmann J. 2001. Selection for male choice based primarily on mate compatibility in the oldfield mouse, Peromyscus polionotus rhoadsi. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 50: 436-440.
63. Salze G, Tocher DR, Roy WJ, Robertson DA. 2005. Egg quality determinants in cod (Gadus morhua L.): egg performance and lipids in eggs from farmed and wild broodstock. Aquaculture Research 36: 1488-1499.
64. Shackleton MA, Jennions MD, Hunt J. 2005. Fighting success and attractiveness as predictors of male mating success in the black field cricket, Teleogryllus commodus: the effectiveness of no-choice tests. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 58: 1-8.
65. Sigurjónsdóttir H, Gunnarson K. 1989. Alternative mating tactics of Arctic charr, Salvelinus alpinus, in Thingvallavatn, Iceland. Environmental Biology of Fishes 26: 159-176.
66. Skarstein F, Folstad I. 1996. Sexual dichromatism and the immunocompetence handicap: an observational approach using Arctic charr. Oikos 76: 359-367.
67. Skarstein F, Folstad I, Rønning H. 2005. Spawning colouration, parasites and habitat selection in Salvelinus alpinus: initiating speciation by sexual selection? Journal of Fish Biology 67: 969-980.
68. Torrissen OJ. 1984. Pigmentation of salmonids - effects of carotenoids in eggs and startfeeding diet on survival and growth rate. Aquaculture 43: 185-193.
69. Tregenza T, Wedell N. 2000. Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Molecular Ecology 9: 1013-1027.
70. Trivers RL. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B, ed. Sexual selection and the descent of man. Chicago, IL: Aldine, 136-179.
71. Tyndale ST, Letcher RJ, Heath JW, Heath DD. 2008. Why are salmon eggs red? Egg carotenoids and early life survival of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Evolutionary Ecology Research 10: 1187-1199.
72. Wagner WE Jr. 1998. Measuring female mating preferences. Animal Behaviour 55: 1029-1042.
73. Walling CA, Royle NJ, Lindström J, Metcalfe NB. 2010. Do female association preferences predict the likelihood of reproduction? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 64: 541-548.
74. Wedekind C, Müller R, Spicher H. 2001. Potential genetic benefits of mate selection in whitefish. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 14: 980-986.
75. Wedekind C, Evanno G, Urbach D, Jacob A, Müller R. 2008. 'Good genes' and 'compatible genes' effects in an Alpine whitefish and the information content of breeding tubercles over the course of the spawning season. Genetica 134: 21-30.
76. Wong BBM, Candolin U. 2005. How is female mate choice affected by male competition? Biological Reviews 80: 559-571.